Author |
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 20:27 |
Epignosis wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish. Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail. And that's your punishment for being racist. |
But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.
The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. |
And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist.
Cheers Jim!
|
(as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent), - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm.
|
What?
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 20:35 |
jplanet wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
It isn't an innocent rephrasing. It's plainly what the man was saying. Read it again, more carefully:
"What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of,
'I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,'" Paul said. "I think that
sounds really un-American in his criticism of business."
Essentially it's un-American for the government to restrict private businesses in the way liberals want, even in the face of terribleness (which happens even when the government is involved).
As for racism, I do not like it- and that's racism of all origins and forms- but I support private entities' freedom to express it (if a restaurant won't let minorities dine there, I won't either).
I'm anti-gay marriage, by the way. I know some libertarians who are also. For example.
|
Ok, this is proof positive for me that the teabag party is nothing more than an attempt to put a "hip" face on old, pro-corporate, pro-racist, anti-minority views.
It's people who are fed up with the way the federal government is currently behaving. It has nothing to do with race.
Who cares if racist business owners get to run businesses the way they want to other than racists?
If society determines that being prejudice against people on the basis of race is bad (and I would assume that's true in this country), then businesses that exhibit those practices will go out of business.
Who cares of gay people get married other than homophobes? Do you care to explain how society benefits from this restriction?
Are we talking about gays being allowed to marry or gays being allowed to have the same economic rights as married couples?
I am so pro gay marriage that I am married to my boyfriend - and I'll fight for that right until the end.
And that's entirely your decision. No one has the right to tell you who you can and can't love. ![Smile Smile](smileys/smiley1.gif)
|
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
horsewithteeth11
Prog Reviewer
Joined: January 09 2008
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Points: 24598
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 20:36 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish. Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail. And that's your punishment for being racist. |
But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.
The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. |
And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist.
Cheers Jim!
|
(as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent), - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm. |
Which is exactly why I think racism in the United States is worse today than it was in the 1960s. Anybody who tries to talk about how to fix it is usually deemed a "racist" themselves. And not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 20:48 |
The Special One wins the Triple for Internationale ![Approve Approve](http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley14.gif)
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 22:18 |
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I believe you
should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish. Chances
are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail.
And that's your punishment for being racist. |
But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or
at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the
case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was
necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until
the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed
black people to do things? There's no point in having
anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their
own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't
follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms
so they stop being so terrible.
The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a
fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a
good point with regard to libertarian racism. |
And I believe that
the majority of our country isn't racist.
Cheers Jim!
|
(as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is
naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next
tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next
continent), - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon.
And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction -
passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the
society's norm. |
That is interesting, though my life experience has not led me to that
conclusion (which is not to say I dismiss your thought-perhaps the word *everybody* is the only word I take exception to). In my father's
youth, he and his brothers/friends fought old school with their fists
against black youth, though his impressions were that these battles were
as much turf wars more than racial hatred....and there was white on
white/black on black jousting too. It was a very poor neighborhood equal parts black and white. It was a product of that time and not something he carried forth into his married family life or passed to his kids. By my youth, growing up in the
70s/80s in a different neighborhood there was none of that. I had mates who were white/black, kids
from India, Russia, Vietnam, probably others. NONE of those attitudes did I detect in my peers. I can't
remember any malice that was based on that kind of hatred occurring around me personally. Now perhaps it is coming back. I know some kids now who talk
about racial tension in the same schools I went to. But I honestly do
not remember it. Living in a very diverse neighborhood now (a mix of
white/black/hispanic) I still have no malice based on these
differences. I do have a problem with crime, committed by anyone, and I
see that as a completely different issue. Some of the best friendship of my life were people who were from a different country, and they have been fascinating and wonderful. Filled with learning and yes....amazing food from the Indian and Vietnamese kids parents!
So perhaps I've always lived in a bubble? Or just got lucky. Good posts tonight.
Edited by Finnforest - May 22 2010 at 22:19
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 22:36 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
If society determines that being prejudice against people on the basis of race is bad (and I would assume that's true in this country), then businesses that exhibit those practices will go out of business. |
And when, exactly, would black people be able to eat at any restaurant they want in Alabama without the Civil Rights Act? I know this is going to sound offensive, but it's easy for us to be cavalier about this sort of thing when we're white...
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
KoS
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 17 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 16310
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 22 2010 at 23:44 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
If society determines that being prejudice against people on the basis of race is bad (and I would assume that's true in this country), then businesses that exhibit those practices will go out of business. |
And when, exactly, would black people be able to eat at any restaurant they want in Alabama without the Civil Rights Act? I know this is going to sound offensive, but it's easy for us to be cavalier about this sort of thing when we're white...
|
As non-white, I'd say you're right.
Edited by KoS - May 22 2010 at 23:44
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 00:10 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
Ok, this is proof positive for me that the teabag party is nothing more than an attempt to put a "hip" face on old, pro-corporate, pro-racist, anti-minority views.
It's people who are fed up with the way the federal government is currently behaving. It has nothing to do with race.
Who cares if racist business owners get to run businesses the way they want to other than racists?
If society determines that being prejudice against people on the basis of race is bad (and I would assume that's true in this country), then businesses that exhibit those practices will go out of business.
Wrong assumption - people would throw minorities under a bus in a heartbeat. When they can get away with it, they do it. If it were freely allowed, millions would be denied essential goods and services in their daily lives, many realtors wouldn't show them apartments or houses, grocery stores would turn them away. It would be a nightmare, and people in the US have proven this before when given the chance.
Who cares of gay people get married other than homophobes? Do you care to explain how society benefits from this restriction?
Are we talking about gays being allowed to marry or gays being allowed to have the same economic rights as married couples?
Marriage in the civil sense, which entitles each partner to economic rights. so, the answer is both. You know, equality.
I am so pro gay marriage that I am married to my boyfriend - and I'll fight for that right until the end.
And that's entirely your decision. No one has the right to tell you who you can and can't love. ![Smile Smile](smileys/smiley1.gif)
Of course! But many try to marginalize it every day. As I stood by my partner's side through ten years, stood by him through a kidney transplant, and took on the role of caregiver - then I look at all these straight couples marrying because someone got knocked up, societal pressure, citizenship, etc., yet they tell me that our relationship is not as legitimate as theirs - seriously, really? And when it comes from so-called Libertarians, it is quite literally adding insult to injury.
|
Edited by jplanet - May 23 2010 at 00:11
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 00:30 |
jplanet wrote:
Wrong assumption - people would throw minorities under a bus in a heartbeat. When they can get away with it, they do it. If it were freely allowed, millions would be denied essential goods and services in their daily lives, many realtors wouldn't show them apartments or houses, grocery stores would turn them away. It would be a nightmare, and people in the US have proven this before when given the chance. |
You're exaggerating just a teensy bit. Yes, banks redlining neighborhoods was a terrible thing to do, but I think that was more about poverty and loan delinquencies than racism. Do you seriously believe that if the Civil Rights Act was repealed, minorities wouldn't be able to get groceries anymore? America is not the same as it was in 1930, people would get pissed if that happened again. Just like I haven't killed any Native Americans lately. And holy sh*t we elected a black President! Finn, if you truly are 100% comfortable with all people from all cultures, then yes, I would say you are an exception. I cannot say that I am, although that is in a large part due to the practices of other cultures. However, I think that being friends with ethnic people in your neighborhood doesn't count as overcoming the brain's inherent conservatism and xenophobia. They're right there, xenophobia is about people who you don't know. And while we're talking about government...
Edited by Henry Plainview - May 23 2010 at 00:46
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
harmonium.ro
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin
Joined: August 18 2008
Location: Anna Calvi
Status: Offline
Points: 22989
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 05:03 |
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
akamaisondufromage
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 05:11 |
horsewithteeth11 wrote:
Dean wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Epignosis wrote:
I believe you should be able to run your business serving whomever you wish. Chances are, if you refuse the service of any group, you choose to fail. And that's your punishment for being racist. |
But that only works when the majority of society is not racist, or at least not willing to be seen as racist in public. That was not the case in the South before the Civil Rights Act, which is why it was necessary. Should black people have waited another 50 or 100 years until the white majority realized they were wrong and graciously allowed black people to do things? There's no point in having anti-discrimination laws that everybody is willing to enforce on their own, because as you said people will ostracize anybody who doesn't follow societial norms. The point is to change societal norms so they stop being so terrible.
The WSJ quoted this NRO piece today, and while I'm generally not a fan of the National Review (I loathe Mark Steyn), I thought it was a good point with regard to libertarian racism. |
And I believe that the majority of our country isn't racist.
Cheers Jim!
|
(as I stated during the UK elections) I believe that everybody is naturally xenophobic, (whether the "foreigners" come from the next tribe, hamlet, village, town, city, county, country or the next continent), - which isn't racist or bigotry unless it is acted upon. And sometimes that action can be something as simple as inaction - passive condoning or acceptance (by the silent majority) becomes the society's norm. |
Which is exactly why I think racism in the United States is worse today than it was in the 1960s. Anybody who tries to talk about how to fix it is usually deemed a "racist" themselves. And not talking about a problem doesn't make it go away.
|
its a bit too easy to say if a business chooses not to serve a group of people then they choose to fail. That could happen if that group is big enough and vocal enough and receives the support of the majority and are aware that the business is descriminating. That's a lot to expect and as Dean says lack of action will look like condoning this kind of behaviour.
There are other groups such as disabled people who are a clear minority and may be more expensive to provide a service to. So you are saying that if MacDonalds (For Example) decide it is too expensive to provide access to disabled people (Even though they can afford to) then this is acceptable - the free market will eventually cause Macdonalds to change its mind? How long would this take? And there are even smaller minorites who are much more invisible. And smaller businesses than Macdonalds will get away with what they can.
To coin a phrase this idea is patently Bollocks. ![LOL LOL](http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley36.gif) The idea that the free market will sort everything out? Look at the Banks. They prove the fact that unfortunately good legislation is necessary.
One day you might find yourself banned from a Bed and Breakfast on the ground of being a 'Prog Fan' How would you feel?
|
Help me I'm falling!
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 05:23 |
Well, speaking of the US today vs. the US in the 60's, lynchings aren't tolerated, you can't be denied service at a public serving establishment based on the color of your skin, and I was able to legally marry my wife... It begs the question of those who want to "take my country back": back to what???
Edited by Slartibartfast - May 23 2010 at 05:27
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 08:23 |
Yup Brian, that's exactly what they want......they want to go back to racial lynchings and dividing restaurants. Another nice worthless provocation, you're on a roll.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
jplanet
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 30 2006
Location: NJ
Status: Offline
Points: 799
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 08:35 |
Finnforest wrote:
Yup Brian, that's exactly what they want......they want to go back to racial lynchings and dividing restaurants. Another nice worthless provocation, you're on a roll.
|
Excuse me while I turn on my air purifier to remove the cloud of smug coming off of your post. Ok, O Wise One, care to ellaborate? What in God's name would be accomplished by decriminalizing institutionalized racism? How do Ayn Rand Paul and the Teabaggers want to improve my life by suggesting this? Answer Brian's question, don't just repeat selected phrases of his post back to him in a lame attempt to make him sound like he doesn't have a valid question.
Edited by jplanet - May 23 2010 at 08:37
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 08:54 |
You're pretty good at smug yourself. His "question" wasn't a question and does not deserve a response. Like his post of a few days ago, its simply an attempt to insinuate a large portion of the country is racist. It's a non-starter for conversation after we've had some pretty good exchanges here the last couple of days. I will not answer his questions that start from the perspective that I'm evil. And I'm not talking about Rand here...but general conservatism in the public. I for one do not support decriminalizing institutionalized racism if that's what you are suggesting/asking.
Edited by Finnforest - May 23 2010 at 09:21
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 09:42 |
If I pose a question that doesn't deserve a response you are totally free to ignore it.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 09:52 |
True, I'll try to work on that.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 10:02 |
Then again, when there's unfounded blanket insinuation, not objecting
lets the falsehood persist.
Tough call.
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29625
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 10:32 |
Well, no reason why we can't have a civilized and spirited debate. You may not be a racist personally but there are lots of racists amongst the teabaggers. In fact they are just a division of the Rupugnican party. When the Democratic Party stood up for civil rights it didn't take long before the racist democrats became Republicans. But this is New of the day: Arkansas: Legacy of Talk Radio, FOX Fraudcasting, GOP
and Tea Party Hate, Yet Again. Two Officers Dead. "Man Who Shot Police
Had Antigovernment Views." He Used an Assault Weapon by the Way, Which
Obama Said He Would Ban in the Campaign, But is Now Silent About So as
Not to Offend the NRA. We Have Had Many Killings in the Last Few Months
by "Anti-Government" FOX and Limbaugh Influenced Sort of Domestic
Terrorists. But They are All White "Christians," So They are Considered
Criminals, Not Terrorists. So, if You Swear by Christ, You Are Never a
Terrorist, Because You Represent a Voting Block? "Mark Potok, who
directs hate-group research at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said Mr.
Kane had not been in the group’s database before Thursday. But he said
that was not surprising, given the “explosive growth” in the
antigovernment movement in recent years. With 363 new groups in 2009,
there are now 512, Mr. Potok said."
Edited by Slartibartfast - May 23 2010 at 10:35
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |
Finnforest
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 03 2007
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 16913
|
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: May 23 2010 at 10:39 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Well, no reason why we can't have a civilized and spirited debate.
You may not be a racist personally but there are lots of racists amongst the teabaggers. In fact they are just a division of the Rupugnican party. When the Democratic Party stood up for civil rights it didn't take long before the racist democrats became Republicans.
|
It's difficult Brian when you start from where you do, which is to from the start assume the worst about people who disagree with you. Do you realize you just called for civility even as you namecall your opposition with two insulting terms in the very next paragraph?
Edited by Finnforest - May 23 2010 at 10:48
|
|
![Back to Top Back to Top](forum_images/back_to_top.png) |